mhs5200_set_output

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description correctly indicates it enables or disables outputs, and annotations confirm idempotency and non-destructiveness. The return type ('JSON confirming the output state') is stated. No side effects or hidden behaviors are omitted, though additional context about state persistence would be beneficial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, using a single sentence for purpose and a clear list for parameters and return value. It avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the args section could be integrated into the main description to reduce redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple boolean toggle with an output schema (though not provided in detail), the description gives enough context. It mentions the return type, and the tool's scope ('all signal outputs') is clear. The annotations fill in safety and behavior gaps. It is adequate but could include a note on effect on other settings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides a detailed description for the 'enabled' parameter ('True to enable all outputs, False to disable'), and the description's repetition adds minimal extra value. With 0% schema coverage as per context, the description does partially compensate, but it merely echoes the schema without deeper semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Enable or disable all signal outputs.' It uses a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and specifies the resource ('all signal outputs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mhs5200_set_amplitude or mhs5200_set_frequency, which control individual parameters.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for global output control without explicit when-to or when-not-to guidance. However, the purpose is straightforward and the differentiation from siblings is clear due to the focus on 'all signal outputs.' A small mention of alternatives or prerequisites would improve it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.